First off, your ticking-time bomb scenario has NEVER played out in real life. If so, you or others surely would have provided evidence of such, instead of this repeated hypothetical.

Secondly, other methods of interrogation have proven far more effective than torture. You are using a falacious hypothetical to justify using an ineffective method.

” it is possible that if you use a technique like waterboarding, you could get information from a terrorist that could avert an attack that would save hundreds/thousands of lives.”

Sure, it is possible. But it is more likely you’ll get accurate information if you use other methods of interrogation.

It’s too bad you don’t know the history of torture. Torture isn’t used to save a life. Torture is used to get names. If you’re tortured and all the oppressor wants is a name, any name, of some co-conspirator and your pain will stop, you’ll give him names. And those people will be tortured, all in the name of rooting out some conspiracy, some heretics, some witches. If they want to know about plots, you’ll tell them of all kinds of plots.

As I said, there are far more effective methods of interrogation than torture. I would authorize those, as they have a greater liklihood of success. Torture only fills a perverse desire to inflict pain on another for your own sick gratification.

now picture someone you love. image that person is being held hostage. the hostage takers are captured. they reveal that your loved one is alive but they are unwilling to say where. you know your loved one will die, if not rescued. the authorities tell you, if you authorize it, they will waterboard the hostage takers to try to get the information. okay, Briseadh na Faire, what do you do?

now, if you so principled to say it is morally wrong and you wouldn’t authorize it, go tell the person you pictured in you mind the scenerio and how important it is to live in your simple black and white world.

1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely…

The only way around this language is to redefine what is meant by “persons.” Exley, you have used your magnificent legal skills to say that the Supreme Court erred when it read that “Persons” applied to all human beings.

Next, from SB 3930:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant’ means–
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

That means United States citizen’s can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant.

and:

c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

That means once you’re declared an unlawful enemy combatant, you cannot challenge that determination.

This is a great way to quell civil unrest. All you have to do is participate in a peace rally, and you could be found to have engaged in hostilities against the U.S. People who speak out against Bush’s War have already been labled traitors. Now Bush has the tool he needs to lock up the opposition indefinitely.

There is nothing reasonable nor limited about this bill.

Also, your characterization of this statute is not accurate. It does not simply “clarify” the requirements of Common Article III (requirements which had never previously required “clarification”; which were written into the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have been taught to our soldiers and marines for decades; which the military itself – y’know, the organization actually bound by the Geneva Conventions – never said were vague … I could go on. The bigger problem, though, is that the only thing the statute defines is “grave violations” of Common Article III – i.e., violations which are so significant that they rise to the level of war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act. Aside from the specifically identified “grave” violations, the statute allows Pres. Bush, in his sole discretion, to decide what conduct does or doesn’t violate Common Article III – and the president’s decision is not subject to review.

That’s the whole point. If waterboarding is not defined in this statute as a “grave” violation of Common Article III (and, it’s not), the President has the sole authority to determine that waterboarding does not violation Common Article III, and NO ONE can challenge that determination, including the people who are subjected to it. Now, if you’ve read anything about waterboarding – a tactic favored by the Khmer Rouge, by-the-by – you’ll be hard pressed to argue that it doesn’t constitute “cruel” or “inhuman” treatment. But, in the alternative universe of the Bush administration, the President can declare that waterboarding is okay, and voila, no one can stop him from waderboarding to his little heart’s content.

I will say this – having re-read the Court’s Hamdan decision today, I have serious doubts that this statute will be upheld if it is challenged. The media have interpreted the decision to say that the existing military commissions were defective because they were not specifically authorized by Congress – as though passing a statute authorizing commissions automatically cures any problem. That is not at all the case. The Court concluded, among other things, that the Pres. is bound by Common Article III and that any and all treatment of detainees has to be measured against Common Article III standards. The Court also expressed considerable doubt about Congress’ authority to restrict the Court’s appellate jurisdiction and the Court’s right to review the actions of military commissions by habeas corpus review.

A few quick points — As you can see from the language of the legislation contained in posting #112, the type of physical cruelty and injury caused to John McCain by his Communist captors is strictly prohibited….

Secondly, John McCain and other uniformed soldiers in a nation’s military are “lawful combatants” who enjoy additional, more stringent protections under the Geneva conventions. This legislation deals with Common Article 3 of the Conventions, which applies to Article 3 is applicable in case of armed conflict not of international character occurring in the territory of one of the contracting parties to the 1949 Conventions. It also applies to a situation where the conflict is within the State, between the Government and the rebel forces or between the rebel forces themselves (NOTE: The fact of the matter Common Article 3 should not even bee involved in this matter…It clearly is not applicable to the War on Terror. However, five justices of SCOTUS misapplied the Article, thus requiring this legislation).

Finally, it is a strawman argument to claim that because of this bill, our enemies will no longer feel compelled to adhere to the requirements of the Geneva Convention when treating captured U.S. forces….The fact of the matter is we have not had an enemy who adhered to the Geneva Conventions in treatment of prisoners since WORLD WAR I. In every conflcit since 1917, the enemy has flouted and violated the Geneva Conventions…..So, to argue that this bill will cause other states to ignore their obligations under the Geneva Convention is most unconvincing.

Section 948b(a), which defines the purpose of the military tribunals generally, provides:

“(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.”

Section 948a(3) defines “alien” as follows:

“(3) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.”

You cannot fairly construe the definition of “unlawful combatant” in a manner that is inconsistent with the rest of the Act, including the defined purpose of the subject of the Act.

In sum, the tribunals have nothing to do with American citizens

MANN, HUMANITY: REVERSED

you can look up the Rune definition yourself, but the name says it all.

A last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could have sweeping implications inside the United States: It would strip green-card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being “enemy combatants.”

Congratulations, Exley. You are supporting a bill that allows legal residents of the United States to be locked up indefinitely simply by being ACCUSED of being an enemy combatant. They can’t even challenge it.

You do understand this, don’t you? Or is it too simple for your mind to grasp?

And yet you have no problem with this.

Guilty until proven innocent. That is what you are supporting.

I guess you missed the story some time ago of the man in California who was paid a visit by the FBI. Seems he made a negative remark about Bush at work, and one of his co-workers, a Bush supporter, apparently got pissed off and called and reported him.

Just think if the guy’s co-worker took it to the next level and reported him as a terrorist supporter and claimed he heard him talking about blowing up a federal building.

Is there anything, Exley, that you can cut-and-paste from the legislation that would save this guy from being locked up for, say, 5 years based on this accusation?

Almost 24 hours later and you still haven’t responded to my post #48. Yet you danced around it last night and posted to others.

As you have congratulated the Bush administration twice now, do you feel like responding to me? I’ve reposted my note below:

I’m sure it’s just fine and dandy with you if another country who just happens to be an enemy of the U.S. captures and holds our troops, or innocent Americans who happen to be caught in that country during war, and refuses to release them or put them on trial, or tell them why they are being held. Right? I mean, after all, an innocent American could be labeled an enemy combatant simply because they are an American.

How about an enemy who tortures American troops by using the same techniques Bush approves of? Is that OK by you?

Do you support the action of John McCain’s captors in Vietnam, who broke his arms? I’m quite sure Bush would approve of such behavior, seeing as how it doesn’t cause death.

Or do you think breaking someone’s arms to get information is OK only if America is the one doing it?

The official end of our precious democracy. We will never be the same again.

May ALL those who support this legislation be subjected to its provisions.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire

May you learn first hand what it is like to live without either. And may you cry, “But I didn’t mean THIS!”, and find no one willing to listen.

The bill, approved 65 to 34, establishes far-reaching new rules on the treatment of terrorism suspects and is expected to go to the president by week’s end. Twelve Democrats crossed party lines to support the legislation

Major, MAJOR victory for President George W. Bush. Good for those 12 Democrats for putting the interests of the country ahead of partisanship.

Well done, Congress.

Your point is what? Since we tortured in the past, it is ok to torture now?

Gee, you might as well point out that the British used perhaps one of the first incidences of biological warfare when, during the colonial period, they gave smallpox laden blankets to the Native Americans and wiped out thousands, if not tens of thousands.

Maybe the Tower of London makes it ok for us to torture. Or how about the Spanish Inquisition?

How is torturing someone even open to debate? It’s wrong. Period. Under any circumstance. Note: I’ve already challenged those who support this Administration to cite even one example from history where torture under the “ticking time-bomb” scenario has resulted in averting the disaster that the terrorist planned. No one cited even one incident. Ever. It hasn’t happened.

Torture is wrong. Period. No debate. Any argument in support of torture is morally wrong.

you get the feeling that people here believe that intimidating interrogation and torture has never been used in the u.s. until now. it’s only that it’s never been debated.

The problem is, once you’re rounded up and declared an unlawful enemy combatant, you have no right to a speedy trial, hence no right to a hearing, and no standing to file habeaus corpus. As long as you don’t get a trial, how can you challenge the Constitutionality of the law? You can’t.

This law makes the United States of America the biggest, baddest TERRORIST STATE the world has ever known.

Exley and Hendler must be thrilled at the prospect of being able to incarcerate and torture with impunity.